Last-moment bond won't fix water issue

GOP helps secure stepped up amount of dam funding

FILE - This May 1, 2014, file photo shows irrigation water runs along a dried-up ditch between rice farms in Richvale, Calif. In Santa Cruz, Calif., dozens of residents who violated their strict water rations take a seat at Water School, hoping to get hundreds of thousands of dollars in distressing penalties waived. California is in the third year of the state's worst drought in recent history. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)
The Associated Press

FILE - This May 1, 2014, file photo shows irrigation water runs along a dried-up ditch between rice farms in Richvale, Calif. In Santa Cruz, Calif., dozens of residents who violated their strict water rations take a seat at Water School, hoping to get hundreds of thousands of dollars in distressing penalties waived. California is in the third year of the state's worst drought in recent history. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)

SACRAMENTO  “You know why there are so many whitefish in the Yellowstone River?” asked Montana-based landscape artist Russell Chatham, in his 1978 book. “Because the Fish and Game people have never done anything to help them.” I keep that quotation in mind whenever the government promises to solve a problem, especially a big one that promises to tame nature.

The very act of legislative sausage making — that age-old cliché about the ugly nature of lawmaking — assures that deals to please special interests and appease people with differing political philosophies and constituencies drives the final result. Ongoing efforts to craft a drought-related water bond fits that pattern to a tee.

California’s unusually severe drought has been obvious for more than a year, but only now have officials decided to really deal with it with a revised bond. They waited until the last moment — just as the secretary of state was at her deadline for printing November general-election ballots.

The Legislature delayed the public vote on the bond twice because polling showed that California voters weren’t about to approve such a massive expenditure. But officials from both parties agreed on the need to replace this untenable bond with one that has a reasonable chance of passage. The drought offered impetus.

On Monday, legislators approved a two-day ballot-printing deadline extension so that they could complete a deal for a replacement bond. On Tuesday, Gov. Jerry Brown invited reporters to his office to hear the last few minutes of a meeting between the administration, legislative Democrats and numerous “stakeholders” — e.g., the interest groups eager to get their share of the bond dollars.

As the extended deadline approached, the main proposal was for $7.2 billion, but it included only $2.5 billion for dams and water storage. The GOP has demanded $3 billion for storage. Republican spokesman Peter DeMarco spoke to reporters, comparing inadequate dam funding to building half of the Bay Bridge.

Bond supporters insist that the plan is “tunnel neutral” — a requirement to keep the bond from sparking the kind of north-south water war that doomed the 1982 measure to build peripheral canals around the delta.

The heated debate brought back memories of the old days when Republicans were still in the game. “Because three Democrats got their fingers caught in the cookie jar, we have to go along with Republican demands for water storage,” said Jerry Cadagan, a longtime water activist, referring to the scandals that stripped the Senate supermajority from Democrats.

Gov. Brown, although noting that it would be nice if the Legislature didn’t need a two-thirds vote to qualify the bond for the ballot, said that it improves the final product to have both parties and a wide variety of views involved in the negotiations. Different opinions certainly can yield a better package, but they can also turn bonds into giant grab bags.

Critics wonder why the state even needs a bond given the relatively small amounts earmarked for dams. Those dollar amounts could be funded through the general fund, especially given that any storage construction projects would be built over several years.

But I mainly wonder why would anyone would expect a hobbled-together bond deal to fix such a major problem. It no doubt has many good elements. But it is the result of so many competing interests and varying political philosophies — and it’s filled with last-minute provisions and vague financial authorizations. Just like every such bond.

So I’m betting nature has a better chance of fixing this problem on its own.